The source of this giddy news was the Government Accountability Board’s notoriously inaccurate voter registration database. They might have heard that the GAB database is terribly flawed if they were the least bit interested in concerns about vote fraud, or even if they’ve read a newspaper recently. But this story was just oh-so-too-good-to-check, so they went with it anyway. Of course it isn’t true.

Had Wisniewski and company bothered to do a simple check, they might have learned that one Russell Dana Feingold first voted in an election in 1995 shortly after his 42nd birthday. According to the GAB, Feingold didn’t even vote for himself for US Senate in 1992. While I wouldn’t recommend anyone voting for Feingold, I suspect that the GAB’s database may not be all that accurate.

click to enlarge

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is also a relatively recent voter if we believe the GAB website. He first voted in the Spring in 1992. I don’t know if he voted for Feingold, either. I’m guessing he voted for Jim Moody in that September primary.

By the way, I am actually in the database twice, it’s missing a few addresses of mine, and doesn’t show me voting in 2000. I also have two aldermen, which will be news to the one who retired.

As we get closer to election day, we are going to see a lot of completely wacky blog posts by some of the left-wing bloggers as they get more and more desperate. When reading the left-wing blogs, let me offer the advice of the late Marvin Gaye, “People say believe half of what you see / Son, and none of what you hear.”

I’ll retract the story at precisely the moment when I see you man up and post something over at RDW criticizing the folks on the “Hate Right” at Badger Blogger for that hate-filled post J. Rawson Schaller directed towards one of their commenters. I’m betting that day will never come though, because you’ve never struck me as the type to call out your own side for being hateful; you’d rather just point your finger at the left.

Until that time, I’m not retracting anything. I’ve admitted I was wrong, which is a heck of a lot more than I’ve seen from you when you’ve been wrong.

The advantage of blogging, and one area where blogging has tended to be superior over the mainstream media, is that bloggers are expected to post the correction as prominently as the original blog post.

You can try to point your finger at a blog post that was deleted and say, “Look at that shiny object!” It doesn’t change just how boneheaded your post was.

Don’t worry, Wigderson. I know this can be hard for Republican operatives to understand, but Mike Tate doesn’t tell Zach what to do. There is no regular radio transmission that keeps everyone in line. Zach admits his conclusion-jumping and error. Compare and contrast to what happens at RDW, for example. The entire post would simply be zapped down the Memory Hole. No harm, no foul, right?

I’m sorry, I really haven’t had time to follow up on everything folkbum has written. I’m reluctant to go visit a notorious racist website on a regular basis. But since you bring it to my attention, it looks like the right thing was done when the post was pulled down, unlike the racist stew Jay Bullock and his bloggers sell and defend.

Now, do you want to get back on topic, or is there some other shiny distraction you want to look at?

(As for the lack of radio transmission between Mike Tate and Wisniewski, I’ll have to take your word for it. I just know that I’ve taken to reading Wisniewski’s blog posts in their original DPW press release form.)

Since you mention the distraction, Bert’s post at Folkbum’s place was only remarkable because it was unusual… Gee, one wouldn’t expect a liberal to say anything that could be accused of being racist. You’ve latched onto this accusation like a martini glass only because you like claiming Folkbum is a racist for allowing Bert to post and stay. Oh, wait. You would prefer Folkbum stand on his desk and announce in a loud voice while standing on one leg, that he is a racist just as bad as any other racist even Hitler for allowing Bert’s post to stand.

As such, shouldn’t we require a similar apology, explanation, or at least a response from the BadgerBlogger staff, explaining why group exposure of privates and wee-wee-ing on someone would be their preferred punishment for sending offensive private email? The nearest we’ve heard is a Twitter post sans personal attribution that explains it was a “private joke.” I bet they thought the Walker choo-choo video was pretty ha-ha hilarious, too. Go ahead, tell me what’s funny about the slipped post.

Pseudonym Rawson Schaller’s post was remarkable because it was entirely within BadgerBlogger’s reputation as a place you can go to engage in regular-guy bald-and-wee-wee cop-and-gun fetishism, not to mention over the top anger management issues, or personal insult as a replacement for civil discussion. Heaven knows I’ve been affected by it. Roland and Mickey/Gus O’Leary are still chuckling about the crank calls that (at least) Mickey made to my office. And I’m the one who gets banned from BadgerBlogger! And I didn’t even say anything racist.

Although Zach has admitted his error in his comments and left his post intact, I think that’s a step above the RDW style of simply zapping the post and pretending it didn’t exist, or pretending that your left foot typed the post without your head’s permission because of prescription painkillers that caused limb disassociation. Care for more chicken, Fred?

I’m with you – it wouldn’t hurt Zach to place his mea culpa in a more prominent location. For that matter, if it matters, perhaps someone will simply ask RoJo about his voting record. It would be less interesting, though, than asking more questions about his affection for creationism, sunspots, or government hand-outs for his private business.

Rawson Schaller’s post was inappropriate and not meant for public consumption. The commenter he was addressing uses the alias Tinman-Tim and masks his IP address. From this position of relative anonymity, he has submitted approximately 40 comments laced with the kind of language that would make Zach or Folkbum or Foust faint. Apparently, Rawson’s frustration got the best of him. I’ve urged him to take a breath and realize that Tinman has problems. Anyone who who takes the time to submit 40 vicious insults over a couple of weeks clearly has issues, I don’t know why Rawson let it bother him. Rawson pulled the post almost immediately when he realized he had published it in error. Aside from acknowledging it was innappropriate, there’s nothing more I can do about it. However, I wouldn’t expect an apology from Rawson to Tinman…he doesn’t deserve one.

Speaking of obsessions, Foust was banned from Badger Blogger around 10 months ago. Despite the passage of time, he never misses an opportunity to draw a false, slanderous connection between Badger Blogger and some alleged prank calls he allegedly received.

If he did receive some prank calls, I think it’s wrong. Anyone over the age of 14 who does that probably has some issues. However, anyone who still angrily broods over a prank call after so long probably has some issues as well.

For cryin out loud Foust let it go. I made a post that I later found to be factually incorrect. I work for a living, I was busy so I deleted it. That was the responsible thing to do and years later you still cry about it?

Little Zach’s post is still up and anyone who did not read into the comments would not know it is a lie. That is ten times more misleading than the time I deleted a post.

Are you seriously telling me that if I had made a comment a dozen comments into the thread saying the information was wrong that would have somehow been better? Are you aware how nutty that is?

Did you ever hear the parable about pulling the plank out of your eye before worrying about the speck in anothers?

Fred, you work for a living? And someone pays you during the days like today, while you’re doing all this extensive blogging?

As for what’s better… Yes, I think using the Memory Hole method is less than admirable. Admitting a mistake in the same forum is much better. Correcting it at the top level, that’s great, too. Did you read far enough here to see where I suggested that Zach do that? You’re not going to make me hop around on one leg, are you? Oh, wait. Blaming it on medications is way down the ladder, too, right down there with fostering an online environment that encourages school-yard taunts and personal insults, and banning other people based on their much more politely expressed ideas.

Come now, Roland. City of Jefferson police case number 2009-2675 has ATT call records that pin one of the several crank calls on Mickey O’Leary. Officer Schmidt spoke to Mickey. The above link has an audio recording. Gus/Mickey is a regular buddy of BadgerBlogger who has made similarly appalling posts at other liberal blogs. What sort of proof do you need? You call that a false, slanderous connection? As recently as five days ago, you were accusing me of posting under aliases and admiring my ample forehead with Gus/Mickey. Why the denial of reality?

I’m not denying reality. That is the first time I’ve seen you quote a report number and an officer’s name. So, fine. I’ll assume the prank calls you received actually happened and that they came from a phone listing to Mickey O’Leary. My assertion that you are making a false and slanderous connection is that you say Badger Blogger is responsible for something a commenter does outside the blog. I’ve seen mickey/gus leave comments at JSOnline, perhaps Ricardo Pimentel is part of the vast conspiracy to prank call your house too…eh, John?

You called the police on Mickey. Since you have squawked about additional prank calls, I’ll assume you haven’t gotten any. That report number indicates it was a 2009 occurrence. So why you still obsessed with it a year later?

What sort of chain of evidence would be sufficient for you? Read the link above. We have the apparent connection between my posts, commenter responses on BB, and then a series of crank calls that seem to reference the same content. I report to ATT a crank call. It comes back as a phone belonging to a Mickey O’Leary, so it’s not accurate to suggest I called the cops on Mickey. I was nice enough to ask the police to not pursue charges, that I’d be fine with letting them call him – and I let it go. Crank calls don’t leave DNA. Yes, I’m jumping to conclusions by assuming it’s a guy with the same name and description. Maybe there are two Mickey O’Leary on BB who adore me. You think the deliberately caller-ID-blocked call from Mickey O’Leary’s cell phone to my office was a plant? You’re Mickey’s buddy. Did you ever ask him if he did it, or if the cop talked to him about it? If you think it’s a different Mickey, you could ask your friend for his phone number, or call the number on the St. Patrick’s Day parade link at the page mentioned above. Listen to the calls. Any idea who the others might be? Did you make a crank call to me, too? BadgerBlogger is a blog. It is not a person. It is run by several people. Of course BB is not responsible for what Mickey did/does. On the other hand, I like pointing out your close association. You seem to condone and laugh along with Mickey’s behavior at BB and you defend him here.

“I was nice enough to ask the police to not pursue charges, that I’d be fine with letting them call him – and I let it go.”

Really? You’ve done anything but let it go. You’ve been playing the victim card for 9-10 months now and using it to take any opportunity to slam BB on the web. True to form, you hijacked this thread to turn the conversation off its intended course. In one breath you challenge me to uncover the prank call conspiracy, then accuse me of being part of it. Anyone that unhinged over something doesn’t just casually “let it go.” So it begs the question of “what’s the real reason no charges were ever brought against your prank caller(s)?”

I have no idea what that question means. Perhaps you should call George Noory of Coast-To-Coast AM at 1-800-825-5033 and ask him. It fits the mold of his show and he’s pretty good at deciphering stuff like that.

“Of course BB is not responsible for what Mickey did/does.”

Most logical thing I’ve ever seen you write.

“On the other hand, I like pointing out your close association.”

What basis do you have for that characterization? More of the World According to Foust, I suppose. The reality is that I’ve never met the person behind the “mickey/gus” comments. I don’t know anyone named “Mickey O’Leary” either. I’ve exchanged blog commentary, both jovial and adversarial, with “mickey/gus.” I’ve also deleted some of his comments I found objectionable. If that’s your definition of a “close association,” then technically, Foust, you and I are close associates. I don’t think anyone would agree with that.

“…you defend him here.”

Again, really? You apparently missed my 3:47pm comment…and I quote:

“If he did receive some prank calls, I think it’s wrong. Anyone over the age of 14 who does that probably has some issues.”

Wow, it’s taken you a year to stop trying to deny the facts. Even four hours ago, you thought I was jumping to conclusions. It should be simple to verify. Call 414 305-1961. That’s my Mickey. Ask if he’s your BB Gus/Mickey. Might as well ask if he’s Folkbum’s Gus/Mickey, too. And you can verify I handled it in the most gentlemanly method possible by reading the police report to verify that Officer Schmidt asked if I wanted to pursue a full complaint to bring the offender to justice, and I said “no”. I never even called back to ask to hear what happened when he called Mickey. How very obsessive of me!

You are obsessed, John. If it was water under the bridge, you wouldn’t repeatedly bring it up time and again over 9-10 months.

Yes, I did/do think you’re jumping to conclusions. Duh, John. You admitted as much yourself:

“Yes, I’m jumping to conclusions by assuming it’s a guy with the same name and description. ”

As for calling that number, no thanks. Regardless of whether it’s the same “mickey” or not, he’s a stranger to me. I don’t see the point in calling him. Let’s suppose for a minute that I did call him and he did confirm he is the same “mickey” who posts at BB…so what?

Which Internet have you been using? Don’t worry, Roland, people will be mentioning Folkbum and Bert’s posting for years to come. Judging by the past few weeks, it’ll be at this blog. They won’t forget Zach’s flub at the top of this page. They won’t forget IllyT using a c-word (and it wasn’t “you complete me”). They won’t forget DiGaudio’s Obama death wish/threat. They won’t forget Walker’s staff joking about the choo-choo. They won’t forget that as of September 2010, Fred Dooley still doesn’t think his joke was racist, because a) it’s a Southern thing b) he was overmedicated and c) anyone can have a watermelon in their fridge, and the value of the imaginary seeds, cornbread mix, and coupons would be less than a dollar and that’s what makes it funny. They won’t forget Rawson’s accidental public expression of what passes for a private joke among the BadgerBlogger staff.

Like Mickey’s crank call, reasonable people are justifably concerned when writings on blogs provokes the unhinged to lash out into real-world actions. I can think you’re bananas but as you put it, we’re not 14 and a crank call by an adult is a bit unbalanced not to mention illegal. My office received four or five calls in different voices and some were vaguely threatening. I think it’s reasonable to assume the BB staff was involved, as I was banned within hours. Rawson’s fantasy looked and smelled like a real threat, and any reasonable person should be offended that he’d believe an active duty cop and a retired cop would join in the fun. There are reasonable, rational, and even adorable right-wing bloggers in Wisconsin whose company I enjoy online and I bet we’d have a great time in person. They’re not at BadgerBlogger as far as I can tell.

Sounds to me like you have evidence of receiving prank calls. You have evidence that at least one of those calls came from a phone listing to a “Mickey O’Leary.” This is where your proof ends, however.

You claim because things that were said in those calls mimicked things that were directed at you on BB by “mickey/gus”, that they are one and the same person. OK. Sounds like a reasonable suspicion to me.

You were so close to a reasonable level of discourse with me, until you resumed your “I think it’s reasonable to assume the BB staff was involved…” meme. You’ve already admitted that we aren’t responsible for what a commenter to our blog does in the real world, but here you say we’re “involved.” What is it you are trying to say, John? Spit it out. Don’t mince words.